Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

It was a long time before people could come up with a reasonabe explanation for how a bumble bee was flying. I remember reading not terribly long ago that it seemed to defy physics. IIRC someone finally figured into their equations some aspect about the wings bending or flexing or stretching or something and they finally worked it out.

I suspect that what Dan is doing and teaching - would also defy the best physics attempts for a long while. And explaining things with wrong/failed (meant to mean missing some aspects) terms seems MUCH more likely that we'll be leading people further astray in a world where people have already been lead astray for far too long.

SOOO I keep trying to ask - and I think everyone else is as well - if you wouldn't mind terribly delaying your attempt to describe somethings you don't claim to be able to do yourself until you have enough common experience to have some reasonable chance of factoring in all of the aspects.

As far as dictating terms, I've read Mike and Dan go back and forth on some terminology too - but it was clear to them they were ultimately discussing similar things. I know that Dan has adopted some of the terms being used here on aikiweb from either Mike ot Rob J. It's not like anyone is saying that Dan gets to be the only person who gets to pick the terms. We just want the terms to come from people who are actually demonstrating ability to do and teach those things - at least initially.

But I'm willing to try to approach it from the other way if you think it will help. I honestly don't understand the confusion about the "jargon", but we can try to clarify if you are up for it.

putting your "intention up" - give me a list of multiple choice for what that could mean. If any of them sound like think up, send your mind upward, if you could reach up with your mind - I'd say pretty much all of those would do. I'm having trouble coming up with a possible meaning of that phrase that wouldn't fit.

"holding lines of intention" - would mean if you for instance were keeping your concentration upward - YOU MAINTAIN THAT and all of the other directions at the same time. If you list other possible meanings - I'll pick from your words which one seems to best fit.

"central equalibrium" - We use that phrase in terms of what one is maintaining to deal with a push or pull and not be effected by the push or pull to the point that they move (where "not move" means in simplest terms something like if you are standing on a big X - you never leave the X). Again, you give me possible options - and I'll clarify based on your words as much as possible.

It was a long time before people could come up with a reasonabe explanation for how a bumble bee was flying.

I am quite sure the bee was not troubled by the lack, nor cared much about people's opinions of its ability to fly or not. On the other hand, it was not the bee that came to know the nature of its flight. And was that a reason to rest satisfied describing the flight of the bumblebee as though "communicating the intention of up" to the air?

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

But I'm willing to try to approach it from the other way if you think it will help. I honestly don't understand the confusion about the "jargon", but we can try to clarify if you are up for it.

I have expressed criticism of the six directions "springs model." If it is merely a holistic attitude adjustment to a generic sensibility -- then fine. NO issue, and never was, which I have said on more than one occasion. Imagine ants crawling down your arms if it makes it work for you, but realize that the creative and subjective element that you (probably rightfully) find useful does not itself lead to any objective comprehension of what the body is actually doing.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

putting your "intention up" - give me a list of multiple choice for what that could mean.

I am supposed to hazard a guess at what an ad hoc expression is supposed to signify? I am not the one ascribing any meaning to the term. I have thoughts about the cyclic nature of balance and the phase and anti-phase relationships of those issues. There are macro and micro aspects to that line of thought with functions recurring at different scales (which reinforces a sense of its validity for reasons I will not go into here). They are not idle thoughts and have sound support. I have written about them.

But relating (or excluding) that topic from discussion of what YOU mean with your "intention up" cannot be said without taking care to observe critically what you actually do when you are doing it AND trying to articulate it -- therefore seeking a terminology suited to the task. THAT attention to the empirical facts of what is occurring is the value of this approach -- with DEEP caterories in which to place them -- more than anything else in any particular theory or choice of mechanical convention.

You begin to notice what is mechanically occurring whether you are thinking of doing it or not. I don't know about you but my budo got better the less I had to think about anything. My concern about the moral responsibility incumbent in budo heightened as that became more the rule than the exception. And that's all I'll say about that. You simply observe what is happening better, because you have a non-arbitrary framework in which to retain and relate that knowledge over time. You learn more from failures and you notice them more closely.

Please give a substantive description of what your perceive you body to be DOING at the time that you conceive of "intention is up" or "holding lines of intention", or "central equilibrium" at least as specific as what Dan gave for the description of his version of shiko, and I'd be pleased to oblige with my observations on the matter. Whether it helps or not is up to you.

Erick.
You are truly amazing, if one wants to become more confused about internal arts they should keep reading your posts. I suggest you take the next flight and go visit Dan.

So you have said before. One of the finest minds in the philosophy of the twentieth-century was a self-taught longshoreman. It is important for you to know that to understand when I say that the reason I do not spend time in such incessant brag-baiting is that I don't care about your opinion of me or for trappings of good repute. If I wanted to beat someone I'd simply get a bigger stick -- but I am after bigger fish. Truth is truth no matter your opinion of it, nor whether you are confused about it it or not.

"Likely" as in following *and learning from* your explanations? - How about a group of young PhD students gathered in a lecture hall for a kinesiology class?

Quote:

One can legitimately dislike as a matter of taste the admittedly densely packed aspects of mechanical terms. But they have a singular advantage. They CAN BE unpacked independently of the ad hoc terminology being addressed by Dan.

I don't dislike such explanations as a matter of taste but rather that, in my opinion, they will not get the readers significantly further down the path to develop internal power. In fact, even if they are technically correct in jargon and even in principal they are too complex to be understood and thus instructional to such a varied audience. This is a paradox.

Kudos to you though. You can describe what's happening in the human body when one uses internal power. Can you then take this highly scientific understanding and use it to train your body to generate internal power? Have you? Is there any existence proof of folks learning in this manner?

One final question, if a scientist went up to Takeda after a display of aiki and said "I know how you did that" and then proceeded to describe it in perfectly accurate scientific terms, would he have been able to comprehend? What about Ueshiba or Sagawa? I know you can't say definitively but hazard a guess. Mine is that they'd be clueless (and then they'd probably toss the scientist on their ass)? LOL

In fact, even if they are technically correct in jargon and even in principal they are too complex to be understood and thus instructional to such a varied audience. This is a paradox.

They are not intended to instruct a varied audience. They are intended for me to instruct me, and for whoever wishes to engage them with me. I simply teach what I have been taught, with some additional insights into physical action at practical junctures that I can point out as they crop up. When I am done or least more satisfied with the progress of the thought, it can be simplified into something more digestible for a general audience. The advantage of it is that the simplification (unlike some ad hoc system) will actually lead to deeper description in the same terms -- which more importantly, are independent, and not of my making.

Quote:

Mark Chiappetta wrote:

if a scientist went up to Takeda after a display of aiki and said "I know how you did that" and then proceeded to describe it in perfectly accurate scientific terms, would he have been able to comprehend? What about Ueshiba or Sagawa? I know you can't say definitively but hazard a guess. Mine is that they'd be clueless (and then they'd probably toss the scientist on their ass)? LOL

Sagawa might be laughing, but at whom is the question:

Quote:

Sagawa from "Clear Power" wrote:

Many people would say back in the day that all you had to do is practice, and more practice! But after I became able to think for myself I found that this wasn't so....
Indeed, most important is that you keep on thinking. If you don't, you cease to have any <good> thoughts. If you continue to think, then a new thought will pop into your head! And then you must write this thought down immediately so that you may try it out, otherwise you will forget it later. Writing this down is key.
... The secret is in always thinking about it. The reason no one progresses or gets any better, stronger is because no one thinks. They forget about what they do in between practices. It has to become a part of your life.

See! This is why you are no good. You don't do something simply because so and so said so. If you simply go through life by simply thinking you can copy people you'll never get anywhere. The only person that can do this is you. You must create your own understanding for yourself. ... In the end its about accumulating your thoughts and having them act as the foundation for other thoughts.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer ..."

All I am discussing is more precise and varied tools for observing and thinking. It may not be to your taste, and I claim no exclusivity of the truth in that regard. Non-western systems are valid if carefully understood in their own terms, although they are less accessible as such. But if you think that such effort, by whatever means, is not important, then you aren't thinking carefully.

All I am discussing is more precise and varied tools for observing and thinking. It may not be to your taste, and I claim no exclusivity of the truth in that regard. Non-western systems are valid if carefully understood in their own terms, although they are less accessible as such. But if you think that such effort, by whatever means, is not important, then you aren't thinking carefully.

And good luck with that.

Nice job with purposely excluding the quote saying where his students DIDNT follow his instructions precisely concerning certain things, and that free thought wasn't always good
Course I figure that's on par for lawyers

I am quite sure the bee was not troubled by the lack, nor cared much about people's opinions of its ability to fly or not. On the other hand, it was not the bee that came to know the nature of its flight. And was that a reason to rest satisfied describing the flight of the bumblebee as though "communicating the intention of up" to the air?

This seems like you are torturing the metaphor on purpose.
If MOST BEES COULD NOT FLY - and someone was able to get them flying, and you came in with a physical description of what goes on in their bodies for flight - that wasn't entirely accurate because you hadn't had any common experience with the people who were taking the non-flying bees and getting them to fly - then we would have a similar situation.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

I am supposed to hazard a guess at what an ad hoc expression is supposed to signify? I am not the one ascribing any meaning to the term.

Yes. If I state something as simply as I can, and it confuses you. Then in normal discussion, you typically ask questions like "do you mean A or B, or C" and then I start to get a sense of where the confusion is. I restated intention up like 3 different ways. I'm not sure what is going on in my body when I do that mental trick. But the description of what we ARE doing - which must have some weird physical effects - is as accurate as I can make it. Explain your point of confusion about what I actually know about (what I am doing mentally) and I'll clarify. Demand that I explain what that impact is on my body physically - then I say I have no idea. And at least I'm actually doing it to some degree. How the heck can you attempt to describe it not actually doing it?

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

Please give a substantive description of what your perceive you body to be DOING at the time that you conceive of "intention is up" or "holding lines of intention", or "central equilibrium" at least as specific as what Dan gave for the description of his version of shiko, and I'd be pleased to oblige with my observations on the matter. Whether it helps or not is up to you.

That seems to be your desire. I don't see value in that myself. But if you do, then YOU show up to Dans dojo - I think he actually volunteered to go meet you - and then give that substantive description of what your perceive you body to be DOING - when you actually have some degree of the common experience. I think Dan expressed a willingness to meet you far MORE than half way. What's the issue?

Nice job with purposely excluding the quote saying where his students DIDNT follow his instructions precisely concerning certain things, and that free thought wasn't always good
Course I figure that's on par for lawyers

So you think Erick is trying to hide the truth? Ok, so people need to both think for themselves AND follow instructions as precisely as possible (assuming the instructions are good, of course). How does this counter Erick's point that his attempt as describing aiki in physical terms can be a powerful tool for learning, even if only for himself (I tend to find a lot of his descriptions interesting, but I'm probably not a good metric)? Isnt that what's being stated by him here after repeatedly being told his efforts are both a waste of time and are hurting others by confusing them? Or am I missing something key (as is too often the case ).

Erick's posts always make more sense to me when seen as strategy / tactics.

But the mechanical description of what's happening doesn't tell me how its being done.

I think there is a body skill involved which never gets mentioned in the descriptions I've read.

Do you think it's even possible to describe the body skill...the "how it's being done?" I mean, the way I see it, there's the left-brained-type (abstract modeling) of conceptualizing the series of events which constitute aiki waza and then there's the right-brained-type (spacial interaction) of sensing and performing the skills themselves. Thinking about how things are moving within the body (left-brained/physical mechanics description) serves as a guide for where to place the awareness so one can then sense and learn how to purposefully engage those skills in the space of reality.

Do you think it's even possible to describe the body skill...the "how it's being done?" I mean, the way I see it, there's the left-brained-type (abstract modeling) of conceptualizing the series of events which constitute aiki waza and then there's the right-brained-type (spacial interaction) of sensing and performing the skills themselves. Thinking about how things are moving within the body (left-brained/physical mechanics description) serves as a guide for where to place the awareness so one can then sense and learn how to purposefully engage those skills in the space of reality.

There's also the cerebellum, a part of the brain that takes care of translating the request signals of the conscious brain into the complex patterns/signals to all the various muscle groups that need to fire in harmony for nearly all of out macroscopic movements. This is also why knowing exactly which muscle you need to fire is almost useless unless you have trained the cerebellum to fire that muscle exclusively.

For kicks and giggles sometime, try tightening the muscles of the forearm/wrist and shoulder while relaxing the muscles around the elbow. It's entirely possible to do, but until your cerebellum figures it out, you can wish all you want to do this seemingly simple task. When you try to relax your arm above the elbow, I guarantee you'll relax the muscles of the shoulder and wrist, at least if this is the first time you've tried this.

This seems like you are torturing the metaphor on purpose.
If MOST BEES COULD NOT FLY

Well, I am fond of bees, so I would not willingly torture them ...

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

Yes. If I state something as simply as I can, and it confuses you.

I am not confused. You repeat an expression (e.g. -- "intention up") you have learned -- to convey something from a closed system of reference. I am trying to tie your understanding of it into an open system of reference. It would be as though, in translating a term from your native tongue of, say, Librettish, you are asking me to tell you what I think YOU mean when you say "qwertyuiop." I may have another very specific reference for that series of letters, but it is neither useful nor enlightening as to what YOU mean by it.

My point is to break the discussion OUT of that "hermeneutic circle" on the premise that it can be related to and described in terms of a universe of well accepted physical phenomena.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

I'm not sure what is going on in my body when I do that mental trick. But the description of what we ARE doing - which must have some weird physical effects - is as accurate as I can make it.

Well, your first point is what I am working on. You are intending and your body is acting -- and there is a severe disconnect between your intention and a comprehension of what that intention is actually directed to, in order to change or maintain (what exactly?) anything. You are entitled to a better understanding than: "Rat hits the push bar -- treat rolls out of slot."

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

And at least I'm actually doing it to some degree. How the heck can you attempt to describe it not actually doing it?

Presumption. What I have to say does not depend on that whole vouching/decrying routine. That is, like, SOoo 12th century. Addressing proper mechanics is specifically intended to make that entrenched sensibility irrelevant. If I were to say that I met and wiped the walls with WHJ it should not persuade you, even if you believed me, and even if it were true -- any more than if I claimed to be Martin Guerre. So, I won't touch any brag-bait as there is no point.

For purposes of common reference let me resort to traditional terminology for a moment and let's build from there. My teacher has pointed out that Dan is overly focused on the ki of earth and not sufficiently concerned with the ki of heaven. We don't train to resist "pushes." That's not to say that we "an't" -- that is saying that we don' We train to enter pushes. We do however train to aiki age and aiki sage, although those terms are not commonly used.

Both aiki age and aiki sage, in my experience, are related to the ways in which the movement of ki (furitama) is connected (musubi) to that of the opponent. Juji frames aiki in musubi . The nature of that relationship and shape drives the interaction. The rest is dynamic consistency of musubi and furitama at a largely subconscious level.

If furitama and/or maai arrive in juji at musubi -- kuzushi results.

Shifting that discussion to the Western side of the table -- I will leave aside for the moment the impact on biomechanical reflex systems. Aiki age or aiki sage are related by complementary mechanical principles, as are the two different modes of asagao and two forms of motion I have presented in more simplified linear terms as "cutting" and "gathering" movements (mechanically distinct from push and pulling motions). They follow the closely related complementary mechanics of torsional shear and harmonic pendulum action.

More generally speaking -- accommodated shear defeats imposed stress and adopted stress defeats imposed shear. Because three dimensional structures are dealing with imposed or adopted rotations and moments, those manipulated shears and stresses shift the action of a translated rotation out of plane. That is to say, spirally -- which is to say, gyroscopically.

Don't accept it because I have said it -- understand it and see for yourself if the forms of the motion and interactions exist in your own perceived structural movements, and in the compromised structure of your opponents.

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

I think Dan expressed a willingness to meet you far MORE than half way. What's the issue?

First of all -- some compelling reason to go to Boston. Second of all -- some compelling reason. Dan wants "credibility" -- someone to be believed. Why? I cannot say. .

I don't care whether you believe ME or not whetehr I am vetted or not. Believe the physics becasue it is long since vetted. Apply it to what your own observations tell you is occurring. If you work on noticing it carefully enough to see what is happening , you can make sense of the mechanics as a foundation for even closer observations of your own. Nothing I say will change any of that -- and nothing I say is intended to go beyond it.

There's also the cerebellum, a part of the brain that takes care of translating the request signals of the conscious brain into the complex patterns/signals to all the various muscle groups that need to fire in harmony for nearly all of out macroscopic movements. This is also why knowing exactly which muscle you need to fire is almost useless unless you have trained the cerebellum to fire that muscle exclusively.

For kicks and giggles sometime, try tightening the muscles of the forearm/wrist and shoulder while relaxing the muscles around the elbow. It's entirely possible to do, but until your cerebellum figures it out, you can wish all you want to do this seemingly simple task. When you try to relax your arm above the elbow, I guarantee you'll relax the muscles of the shoulder and wrist, at least if this is the first time you've tried this.

Intellectualization is great, but words are words.

Absolutely...and a good point about the cerebellum. I agree that words are almost pointless when it comes to learning how our own bodies can behave. Biofeedback (as I understand it) requires simply that we pay attention to ourselves and try to couple our awareness with our purpose. The words we use, whether they're Erick's efforts at quantified description, or Dan's qualitative efforts mean very little unless we can experience them viscerally.
...er...assuming I'm understanding the words I'm using here .
When it comes to being good at aiki, I think the best approach is to experience someone who is very very good. When it comes to describing good aiki, all we have to know are the physiological and physical terms. Ultimately, I'd rather be good at aiki than conceptually understand it, but that doesn't mean I'll knock someone else's attempts at that conceptual understanding.
Anyhoo...
Thanks for the reply, Christian. I always find your posts to be very helpful.
Take care,
Matthew

Do you think it's even possible to describe the body skill...the "how it's being done?" I mean, the way I see it, there's the left-brained-type (abstract modeling) of conceptualizing the series of events which constitute aiki waza and then there's the right-brained-type (spacial interaction) of sensing and performing the skills themselves. Thinking about how things are moving within the body (left-brained/physical mechanics description) serves as a guide for where to place the awareness so one can then sense and learn how to purposefully engage those skills in the space of reality.

The practical aspect that traditionally underlay everything (and is missing in most urbanized sedentary culture today) is in heavy manual labor of almost any suitably varied type. Morihei Ueshiba identified farming -- but that was his experience.

If you learn to deal efficiently at two types of tasks you will have the rudiments of whole- body skills and the "cerebellar" foundations that Chris (correctly) speaks about.

Repetitive center-driven reciprocal limb movements that emphasize sweeping or curling motions or twisting in or out motions.
Bearing, balancing and projecting bulky loads up and or out, and driving objects downward that require your body mass to accomplish.

Examples today that would encompass much of both of them would (still) be farming (cutting/reaping, shifting and tossing bales or sacks, pulling stumps of small trees chopping wood and hauling water, hand or tine-prong weeding (use screwlike motions)).

Construction framing is another good one that leaps to mind (driving heavy framing nails, shifting and lifting lumber and sheet goods, driving ground stakes, excavating, hand augering and screwing). That is all good physical foundation in body skills of the basic type at issue -- not mere general fitness.

What you build on it is another matter. The latter part is cerebral from that physical foundation and is built physically, but according to an intellectually sound plan.

For kicks and giggles sometime, try tightening the muscles of the forearm/wrist and shoulder while relaxing the muscles around the elbow. It's entirely possible to do, but until your cerebellum figures it out, you can wish all you want to do this seemingly simple task. When you try to relax your arm above the elbow, I guarantee you'll relax the muscles of the shoulder and wrist, at least if this is the first time you've tried this.

Intellectualization is great, but words are words.

I was taught early on in my aikido training about relaxing various muscle groups while tightening others. The first was learning to grasp someone firmly with one hand while relaxing the rest of the body, from the elbow up through the shoulder and down through the rest of the body.

I was taught early on in my aikido training about relaxing various muscle groups while tightening others. The first was learning to grasp someone firmly with one hand while relaxing the rest of the body, from the elbow up through the shoulder and down through the rest of the body.

Yes, but can you relax intermediary joints, ie keep the wrist and shoulder strong but the elbow loose?

I think we all know what is meant by "up". (Drop a rock; up is the "other" way. ) Also, most of us all know what is meant by "intention". If not, think about it this way:

Think to yourself: Go pick up that pencil.
Just before you actually move, you might notice your mental intention towards where the pencil is.

Anyone reading this knows what intention toward the pencil means. Now imagine same same type of mental direction going upwards... That's the magic...

What did you think "intention up" COULD possibly mean? We are using English.

I can understand you not wanting to go to Boston. But Dan volunteered to go visit you...

I'm not sure how we are talking past each other here.
The reason we want the information to come from someone vetted, is because we've had enough misinformation to last lifetimes.
No one is trying to bait you. No one is interested in bragging.
We all are interested in the best way to learn this stuff.
Your approach devoid of the common experience has no chance of acceptance. If you get that common experience, please please please help explain it. We all want help. We just want help that actually has a chance of helping.

The reason I (we all) presume you cannot do this stuff too, is because you don't know things like what we all mean by "intention up".

Read up on how "Debate" works (LD for example), particularly the rules about "flow" and things start to make sense. If I say something, and my opponent cannot refute that thing (or forgets to mention it) it "flows", meaning for the sake of the debate, it is TRUE.

Reread Erick's posts with that in mind. Remember when he said that no one had ever refuted his points? According to debate rules, that means they are TRUE.

This is in stark contrast with the ancient Greek idea of dialectic where two parties come together in order to come to a deeper understanding of the TRUTH through a synthesis of their positions.

I'm not interested in LD debate at all. It's just an exercise in mental master----ey...

Well, I can't debate Erick. I can't speak whatever that made up language was. I can barely handle English.

But if he wants:

Quote:

This is in stark contrast with the ancient Greek idea of dialectic where two parties come together in order to come to a deeper understanding of the TRUTH through a synthesis of their positions.

then we are all game.

If not, then while I understand that physics are vetted. Those same vetted physics couldn't explain the flight of a bumble bee for a long time. And those people actually saw bumble bees fly first hand.

If Erick wants to defeat me in a debate he certainly can. If he wants truth - the kind mentioned above - that's his choice too.

Examples today that would encompass much of both of them would (still) be farming (cutting/reaping, shifting and tossing bales or sacks, pulling stumps of small trees chopping wood and hauling water, hand or tine-prong weeding (use screwlike motions)).

Construction framing is another good one that leaps to mind (driving heavy framing nails, shifting and lifting lumber and sheet goods, driving ground stakes, excavating, hand augering and screwing). That is all good physical foundation in body skills of the basic type at issue -- not mere general fitness.

By regurgitating what others have said on the subject you've just proven that all you care about is appearing to be "in the know". Anybody can throw out buzzwords without actually possessing the skills under discussion, and that's you, end of story. Your refusal to take a seat is frankly sad.

and any description of how bodies are moving through space is irrelevant because we can all see the end result. According to the comments Chen Bing weighs 154 lbs and his opponent is 40% heavier than he is. I've never seen an Aikidoka be able to do anything like that from an unscripted clinch, let alone against someone much heavier who even has a grappling background, according to other notes.

you can clearly see how thin he is, which is about right for 150ish. Yet he is doing *something* with his torso whenever he moves, and his every motion follows some visually consistent body rules that I just don't know the particulars of. Neither do you. He clearly has some method of generating power that is not the normal method. I can't toss somebody 40% heavier than me like that, and neither can you. To me, the prior clip is recorded evidence of everything the internal guys have been saying all along. Apart from that, the idea that you have the nerve to imply you know the first thing about how he moves and generates power, what he's doing inside his body, is galling. You've never fooled anyone on this point, and your refusal to just say "I don't know how to do it" is at this point effectively lying.

I, for one, won't accept it just because you've said it. I'm not accepting it because I don't understand your references to dynamics, non-linear systems, linguistics, and other topics. :-)

If someone came to me and said, "I know this guy who wants to learn this stuff. He is a really sharp brain with an analytical bent very good at decomposing objects into systems in order to understand their behavior. He has no physical background like martial arts, dancing, or manual labor, but he's read a lot of books. What do you recommend?" I'd get my hands on him and start showing him what how to use his body using common terms, metaphors, and simple visualizations to trigger certain behaviors. If he started talking theory and dynamics, I'd either let him run his mouth while *I* was training, or I'd politely tell him to shut up.

Not that I ever knew anyone like that, who has seen himself and others, using the hands-on approach, put together more power and connection in their bodies in two years than he almost thought possible :-)

Tom

This guy in question almost doesn't believe it, because he knows how little he actually has, but these other people keep saying there is something to it.

This has been said before, but if you're looking for a western/scientific explanation for the internal stuff---as someone who's been practicing it for a bit, I find the idea of fascial contraction and tensegrity to be very compelling. I don't think it explains it 100%, but it goes a LONG way towards explaining how "relaxed" and "unmuscle-y" movement might be possible. (But again, knowing the physiology behind it doesn't really do anything towards explaining how a student does it on a practical level.)

What did you think "intention up" COULD possibly mean? We are using English.
...
The reason I (we all) presume you cannot do this stuff too, is because you don't know things like what we all mean by "intention up".

You are more straightforward in your approach to these issues than most, which is a credit to you, and probably to your teacher. You (and they) can presume all you want, and it will trouble me not at all. If you ignore something useful on a supposition, you have only your supposition to blame.

If you really conceive that asking to define terms is indicative of anything other than care with meaning, then I don't know what to tell you. I've taken care with meaning since before I began the law twelve years ago, with things physical since I began flying twenty years ago, and with things violent since I started aikido and joined the Navy before that.

You admittedly are dwelling on your intention, not primarily dwelling on what your body is actually doing. As Tim noted, your theory is in search of a physical model for its ad hoc training methodology. Effective or not, it has no physical model. Nothing wrong with that, but that's the fact.

The theory of your present training seems to be that if your intention is refined according to the theory of orientation you are using the body will follow suit. You have defined exercises to frame this intention. You have a guru to mold your intention. Fine. It is a yoga and a good one probably. I don't challenge that.

I am focusing on how my body moves and how it moves in relation the movement of another body in connection. Cutting out the middleman, so to speak. When I think less I move better. The less I think about how and why it moves that way when I am moving, the less disconnected my mind is from the doing of the movement. I reflect carefully on the movement after I have ceased doing it rather than being severely intentional while I am doing it.